ChatterBank0 min ago
Attempts At Under-Bus Throwing.
Johnson today blamed his excellent civil servants and advisers and the current PM and Ms Gray and Dominic Cummings and everybody he's ever met, for everything bad that's ever happened to him. Do you feel sorry for him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have very little interest in all this. Almost certainly Johnson DID knowingly mislead parliament, but I will be amazed if that is the conclusion of the committee. It would be very hard to prove definitively.
While I think he was never fit to be PM, I don't think he deserves all the flak that comes his way over Covid, and as for Brexit, as I have said before, dishonesty was probably a prime attribute for wangling a deal, which was really vital. Outrageous tho that he should now tho be throwing brickbats at the protocol HE signed up to, and along with his fellow ex-PM voting against the Windsor thing.
As for Ukraine, that is a subject that he feally "feels" - you can tell. Sadly that alone, much as I would like it to be the case, does not alone save him.
While I think he was never fit to be PM, I don't think he deserves all the flak that comes his way over Covid, and as for Brexit, as I have said before, dishonesty was probably a prime attribute for wangling a deal, which was really vital. Outrageous tho that he should now tho be throwing brickbats at the protocol HE signed up to, and along with his fellow ex-PM voting against the Windsor thing.
As for Ukraine, that is a subject that he feally "feels" - you can tell. Sadly that alone, much as I would like it to be the case, does not alone save him.
One aspect of Johnson's defence that caught me a bit by surprise was how often he insisted that he regarded the "leaving drinks" events as "essential for work purposes" -- a phrase he often used, presumably under the advice of his legal team. I have a problem with this because, firstly, the advice elsewhere in the Civil Service seems to have been more or less exclusively that marking the retirement of a colleague with any kind of social gathering was absolutely *not* essential for work purposes. That undoubtedly hurt many people, was damaging for morale, etc -- but it was accepted as a necessary consequence of the spirit of the guidance at the time, which was to restrict non-distanced contact to only "essential". Why was that not the advice at No.10? It's obviously not literally essential in terms of being a productive activity, so the only way it could have been essential was as a morale-booster.
But basically all social gatherings are morale-boosters. Here we obviously do intersect with the wisdom of the guidance, but if the interpretation at No.10 was that "morale-boosting/team-building exercises can be regarded as essential for work purposes", why couldn't they have made this clear in the guidance itself, or in the numerous conferences discussing it?
I fail to see how this is in the spirit of the guidance at the time, and in particular I fail to see how someone who wrote, or co-wrote, that guidance couldn't have appreciated this point. (Again, perhaps the underlying issue is that the guidance at the time was simply wrong, or "idiotic", but we have to work with the guidance as it was, rather than as it should have been.)
I'm not sure if this in itself establishes that Johnson "wittingly" misled the House, but it is at least problematic. I'm also not sure as to what extent incompetence is a defence: can Johnson be said to have wittingly misled the House if he genuinely didn't understand what his own guidance/rules meant?
A far more damning point is that Johnson accepted that Martin Reynolds, his PPS, had *not* reassured him that "guidance had been followed at all times" before saying to the House that (he had been reassured that) "all rules and guidance were followed". This seems to amount to an admission that, even if he didn't know that it was *not* true, he was at least not certain that it *was* true; and it was at any rate not true that he'd been "reassured".
* * * *
The really sad part is that this story could have been killed so much faster, and need never have blown up at all. When "Partygate" first broke, his instinct to kill the story as quickly as possible ended up making it bigger still. It's that rapid, and wrong, denial that's come back to bite him.
But basically all social gatherings are morale-boosters. Here we obviously do intersect with the wisdom of the guidance, but if the interpretation at No.10 was that "morale-boosting/team-building exercises can be regarded as essential for work purposes", why couldn't they have made this clear in the guidance itself, or in the numerous conferences discussing it?
I fail to see how this is in the spirit of the guidance at the time, and in particular I fail to see how someone who wrote, or co-wrote, that guidance couldn't have appreciated this point. (Again, perhaps the underlying issue is that the guidance at the time was simply wrong, or "idiotic", but we have to work with the guidance as it was, rather than as it should have been.)
I'm not sure if this in itself establishes that Johnson "wittingly" misled the House, but it is at least problematic. I'm also not sure as to what extent incompetence is a defence: can Johnson be said to have wittingly misled the House if he genuinely didn't understand what his own guidance/rules meant?
A far more damning point is that Johnson accepted that Martin Reynolds, his PPS, had *not* reassured him that "guidance had been followed at all times" before saying to the House that (he had been reassured that) "all rules and guidance were followed". This seems to amount to an admission that, even if he didn't know that it was *not* true, he was at least not certain that it *was* true; and it was at any rate not true that he'd been "reassured".
* * * *
The really sad part is that this story could have been killed so much faster, and need never have blown up at all. When "Partygate" first broke, his instinct to kill the story as quickly as possible ended up making it bigger still. It's that rapid, and wrong, denial that's come back to bite him.
It would be very hard to prove definitively.
It doesnt have to be: it isnt a court of any kind
Part of the Johnson 'mystique' is that he isnt being treated fairly because various legal rules he wants ( because he is benefitted by them) arent being followed. His legal advisers seem to have missed ( yawn) this is not a legal venue - nor should be. All part of the slap-dash Johnson regime no oone want to return to - verb sap and all that
It doesnt have to be: it isnt a court of any kind
Part of the Johnson 'mystique' is that he isnt being treated fairly because various legal rules he wants ( because he is benefitted by them) arent being followed. His legal advisers seem to have missed ( yawn) this is not a legal venue - nor should be. All part of the slap-dash Johnson regime no oone want to return to - verb sap and all that
I'll agree with ichkeria inasmuch as if *this* is the issue that somehow sinks Johnson, then it's a comparatively minor one. There are (arguably) more egregious lies he's told in Parliament, but those are also an irrelevance in this specific case. The Committee isn't obliged to hand out a severe penalty (of 10 days' suspension or more), and in any case any punishment would have to be approved in the House. The more severe it is, the less likely it gets support. Much as I'd love the book to be thrown at him, then, I'm inclined to think that a symbolic punishment is probably appropriate in this instance.
// You expected unbiased reporting from The Guardian? //
The rest of the print media seem to have come to the same conclusion as the Guardian*
* apart from the ridiculous Sarah Vine who has been on the Keto CDB Gummies again.
https:/
The rest of the print media seem to have come to the same conclusion as the Guardian*
* apart from the ridiculous Sarah Vine who has been on the Keto CDB Gummies again.
https:/
It's that rapid, and wrong, denial that's come back to bite him.
no I think people were tired of the "Johnson way", and latched on this as it is obvious he is lying
Johnson is sayiing to himself - "this is piffle for chrissakes considering the other lies I got away with - such as Brexit. what on earth are they going on about?£
no I think people were tired of the "Johnson way", and latched on this as it is obvious he is lying
Johnson is sayiing to himself - "this is piffle for chrissakes considering the other lies I got away with - such as Brexit. what on earth are they going on about?£
// The historical origin of the phrase is irrelevant. We all know what the term means in today's language and in normal circumstances you would be among the first to remind the reader that language changes ... //
I don't think it *is* irrelevant at all; and I'm not even sure this is about the language changing. The entire reason that throwing around the phrase "witch hunt" as a line of defence works is precisely because we understand, at some level, that the targets of bona fide witch hunts are both innocent and powerless, and gives them the status of victimhood; at the same time, it portrays those instigating the "hunt" as little more than a mindless, vengeful, or greedy mob. All of this relies on the historical context.
The whole point of describing this as a witch-hunt is precisely to say all of this at a stroke.
I don't think it *is* irrelevant at all; and I'm not even sure this is about the language changing. The entire reason that throwing around the phrase "witch hunt" as a line of defence works is precisely because we understand, at some level, that the targets of bona fide witch hunts are both innocent and powerless, and gives them the status of victimhood; at the same time, it portrays those instigating the "hunt" as little more than a mindless, vengeful, or greedy mob. All of this relies on the historical context.
The whole point of describing this as a witch-hunt is precisely to say all of this at a stroke.
If you had wanted to say that Johnson is innocent, then you'd have said so. You went instead for calling him the target of a witch hunt. Why did you choose that phrase? Or, going beyond just this site, why is it so popular?
It was because of the imagery of what a witch-hunt entails. The historical context is obviously relevant. It's the same as the use of the phrase "lynch mob". We all know the original meaning, or at least it is there to be known. Those who use it (some examples below) rely on that emotionally-charged history to give the phrase its strength.
https:/
https:/
https:/
It was because of the imagery of what a witch-hunt entails. The historical context is obviously relevant. It's the same as the use of the phrase "lynch mob". We all know the original meaning, or at least it is there to be known. Those who use it (some examples below) rely on that emotionally-charged history to give the phrase its strength.
https:/
https:/
https:/
Not sorry for him, I quite liked him at first, and I think he did as well as anyone could have managed in the early days of the pandemic, ( when nobody knew what to do, he managed to at least fill the role of a steady leader and had the sense to share the stage with those who had more of a handle on the problem) as time went on he seemed to care less about leadership and more about trying to hold things together at any cost. At a time the country needed a Thatcher, we had someone who seemed to morph into a watered down Trump.
I think it's time for him to step away completely, if he won't then the powers that be need to make it happen. At this he moment his only role seems to be to draw attention from more serious issues and that is not helping a country he claims to care about.
I think it's time for him to step away completely, if he won't then the powers that be need to make it happen. At this he moment his only role seems to be to draw attention from more serious issues and that is not helping a country he claims to care about.
Latest Posts
This Is Really Desperate Stuff.
News1 min ago
Crosswords1 min ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
This 'Bad Actor ' Trying To Harm Reform.
News6 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.